BISHOP IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND TALKS STRAIGHT

 

No pun intended in my title.

The Bishop of Buckingham, the Rt Rev Dr Alan Wilson, said the Church’s ban on offering blessings for civil partnerships was being flouted by several parishes across Britain.

He said this was because some felt the blessings were “logical, natural and compassionate”.

His comments come amid tensions within the Church over its opposition to the Government’s plans to legalise same-sex marriage.

The newly enthroned Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, has underlined his opposition to the plans.
....

He said: “At the moment the policy is, 'Don’t ask, don’t tell’. We all know that in many dioceses there are one or two places these gay blessings have been happening. It’s hypocrisy, although it is understandable.
....

He added: “It is very difficult when an institution is too frightened of its own shadow to engage with the real world.

“True leadership is about coping with reality. On the ground, parish churches often deal with these things really well.”

From across the pond, Alan's courageous words continue to inspire and bring the fresh air of clarity to the discussion of blessing same-sex partnerships in the Church of England.  We find no mincing of words, no muddying the waters, no wishy-washy attempts to straddle the gap, but rather an expression of simple pastoral care and compassion for gay couples and a plea for the church to end the hypocrisy.

NOT JUST AN ISSUE, ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN

There you have it. Same-sex marriage is not a particularly controversial issue for the vast majority of the members of the Anglican Communion; their minds are on other things.  Thus the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England must speak against the passage of the bill making its way through Parliament which legalizes same-sex civil marriage in Britain.  I guess there's a kind of logic there, but I can't quite make it out.  Of course, the Church of England is the established church, which complicates the matter in ways I don't fully understand, but I don't see why the opinions of all the members of the churches in the Anglican Communion should affect legislation on civil marriage in Britain.

What about LGTB persons in England?  What does the Primate of All England offer in the way of pastoral care to same-sex couples who are members of the church and would like to be joined in a civil marriage ceremony?  Little in the way of empathy or compassion thus far.  An awareness that marriage equality is not simply an issue, but that the lives of real people will be affected by the legislation seems to be missing from the archbishop's commentary.  Let's hope the path is uphill from here.

Note: The interview took place before the vote in favor of the equal marriage bill in the House of Commons.  

THE ARC OF THE UNIVERSE BENDS TOWARD JUSTICE

As I've followed the struggle for marriage equality for LGTB persons, I see many similarities with the Civil Rights movement for equality for African-Americans here in the United States, which is not at all surprising as the fight for justice for any oppressed group will have parallels with the struggles of other groups.  Here in the US, the movement toward same-sex marriage equality is now state by state.  Gay marriage is legal in nine states: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont,  Washington, and the District of Columbia, with Illinois likely to follow soon.

Thanks to Colin Coward's real-time Facebook reports, I followed the debate in Britain's House of Commons on the bill to allow same-sex civil marriage in Britain preceding the overwhelming vote in favor.  The established Church of England's opposition to the bill, including a statement by the new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, is a puzzlement, but I've addressed the matter briefly elsewhere.

Thanks to Kelvin Holdsworth for the link to quotes and a video of one of the most eloquent speeches in favor of the bill by MP David Lammy from Tottenham.

Separate is not equal. 

But there are still those that say that this is all unnecessary.

“Why do we need Gay Marriage when we already have Civil Partnerships”, they say.

“They are the same - separate but equal”, they claim.
Let me speak frankly.

“Separate but equal” is a fraud.

 “Separate but equal” is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.

“Separate but equal” is the motif that determined that black and white could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets.

 “Separate but equal” are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers – schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty.

It is an excerpt from the phrasebook of the segregationists and the racists.

It is the same statement, the same ideas and the same delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote – but not until they were 30.

It is the same naivety that gave made my dad a citizen in 1956 but refused to condemn the landlords that proclaimed “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.

It entrenched who we were, who our friends could be and what our lives could become.

This was not “Separate but equal” but “Separate AND discriminated”,

 “Separate AND oppressed”.

 “Separate AND browbeaten”.

 “Separate AND subjugated”.

Separate is NOT equal, so let us be rid of it.

Because as long as there is one rule for us and another for them, we allow the barriers to acceptance to stand unchallenged.

Brilliant, heartfelt, and quite moving. 

Here is the link to the entire original speech that David Lammy intended to give but for the four-minute limit on backbench speeches.

UPDATE: France seems to have crossed a major hurdle in its progress toward the approval same-sex marriages. 

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LIKELY TO BECOME LAW IN BRITAIN

The good news:

Parliament took a historic step towards embracing full equality for gay people when MPs voted on Tuesday overwhelmingly in favour of equal marriage at the end of a charged Commons debate that exposed the deep rift over David Cameron's modernising agenda at the heart of the Conservative party.

The 225-vote majority, greeted with rare applause in the public gallery, was marred for the prime minister, who suffered a humiliating rebuff when more than half of the Conservative parliamentary party declined to support the government on an issue he has personally invested in.

The Church of England lags behind the secular government and the people of the country in its response to "Equal Civil Marriage". 

The Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable ―all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.

Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history.

Note that the church's response is to civil marriage.  If, as is likely, the bill passes in the House of Lords and goes to the PM, no authority will force any church or clergy to officiate at same-sex marriages, but churches that wish to do so may move forward.  In fact, as an added protection, the law would ban the Church of England and the Church in Wales from performing same-sex marriages.

The statement that "the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman" is "enshrined in human institutions throughout history" is nonsense.  Throughout history, marriage has had many different expressions, even in the Scriptures.

The further explanation of the church's position includes the following:

The Church‟s understanding of marriage

1. In common with almost all other Churches, the Church of England holds, as a matter of  doctrine and derived from the teaching of Christ himself, that marriage in general – and not just the marriage of Christians – is, in its nature, a lifelong union of one man with one woman.

As Molly Ivins would say, "You can't make this stuff up!"  The church allows divorce.  Maybe the explanation should be corrected to only one man and one woman at a time.  I favor the acceptance by the church of divorce and remarriage in certain circumstances for pastoral reasons, but to use the teaching of Jesus on marriage as a "lifelong union of one man with one woman" in order to condemn same-sex marriage, about which Jesus never said a word, is less than honest and not at all pastoral.

The new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby weighed in with his opinion:

Speaking about the vote, the 57-year-old archbishop said: "I stand, as I have always stood over the last few months, with the statement I made at the announcement of my appointment, which is that I support the Church of England's position on this.

"We have made many statements about this and I stick with that."

What else could he say?  I guess...  Archbishop Justin said earlier, he will "listen to the voice of the LGBT communities and examine my own thinking."  One can only hope he has not given up on the plan.  The position of Archbishop of Canterbury is a bully pulpit.

BLESSINGS AND CONGRATULATIONS, ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN!

A medieval ceremony has begun the process of the Rt Revd Justin Welby becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The College of Canons of Canterbury Cathedral has unanimously elected Bishop Justin Welby as the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The 35-strong College of Canons, made up of senior clergy and lay people from the Diocese of Canterbury, met at Canterbury Cathedral's 14th-century Chapter House to take part in the formality, which dates back more than 1000 years.

Splendid!  And if the new Archbishop of Canterbury succeeds in bringing the Church of England into the 21st century, that would be a remarkable feat of valor, indeed.  Though certain of the membership will resist, and some will insist on staying behind, Justin Welby would be a hero in the eyes of many.

Seriously, the new Archbishop of Canterbury needs our prayers, because he undertakes a very difficult job.

Almighty and everlasting God, from whom cometh every good and perfect gift: Send down upon Archbishop Justin and the bishops, clergy, and congregations committed to his charge in the Church of England, the healthful Spirit of thy grace: and, that they may truly please thee, pour upon them the continual dew of thy blessing. Grant this, O Lord, for the honor of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ.  Amen.

H/T to Andrew Gerns at The Lead.

THIS AND THAT ON ABSTINENCE FROM SEX IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

I have an irritated, streaming eye, so I played hookey from church today.  In addition, it was raining, so altogether too much to overcome, though I was sorry to miss on the feast of the Epiphany.  Never fear.  I shall say my prayers here at home.  

I read Bishop Alan Wilson's excellent blog post on the Church of England as Kafka land, which I urge you to read. I am mystified by the latest anonymous press release from the powers in the Church of England, which basically changes nothing, except that now if a gay candidate for the episcopacy promises not to have sex and to repent of ever "practicing" gay sex, he can be a bishop. Do I have that right? What really has changed?

All that has changed is a grudging recognition of civil partnerships for celibates. The headlines have, however, stimulated vigorous kicking and screaming by people. Lynette Burrows on yesterdays PM programme (18 minutes in) shared with the nation her “instinct that people like me have which is revulsion” about gay people. The role of the Church, she implies, is to validate her instinctive disgust, which she imagines is shared by everybody.

Giles Fraser's response on BBC Saturday PM was very good.  You can hear the shock and outrage in his voice.  Lynette Burrows commentary was truly ugly.  If you wish to listen, the program is available for six days only.

Part of Giles' response on the BBC program is incorporated into his opinion column in the Guardian.

'So, bishop, are you having sex with your partner?" I can't imagine anyone asking that question with a straight face. And what constitutes sex anyway? Snogging? Toe-sucking? (Is there a Church of England position on this?) Yet the new line from the C of E – ludicrously, that gay men in civil partnerships can be bishops as long as they refrain from sex (or to put it another way, we'll have gay bishops as long as they are not really gay) raises the question: how on earth will the authorities ever find out? A CCTV in every bedroom? Chastity belts in fetching liturgical colours? No, the only way the bedroom police could ever really know is if they ask and play a moral guilt trip about honesty on those being interrogated. So do sexually active gay priests or bishops have a moral responsibility to tell the truth? Actually, I think not. I'd go further: in this situation, they have a moral responsibility to lie.

Well, the lying is certainly being done now, and I understand that clergy and bishops lie for their own self-protection.  Still I'd hope for something like a plan for a grand coming-out party where all, or at least a majority, of gay and lesbian clergy and bishops come out of the closet, while, at the same time, a large majority of straight clergy stand in public support of their brothers and sisters.  What would be the response of the leadership in the church?

Of course, it's easy for me to make such a suggestion, because I risk nothing, and perhaps it's pure fantasy, but what will it take for the leaders in the Church of England to realize how foolish they appear with their decisions to pry into the intimate lives of their bishops and clergy in a discriminatory way in order to prolong the practice of inequality?

As is obvious in the broadcast, the discrimination does not appease the people who oppose the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy and the consecration of gay bishops.  Even Archbishop Eliud Wabukala, the Primate of Kenya and the leader of  FoCA, weighed in, and he is not amused.

IT's graphic of CofE bishops coming out of the closet at The Friends of Jake.

WHO WROTE THIS?

Statement on same-sex marriage by English Prime Minister David Cameron:

He said he did not want gay people to be "excluded from a great institution", but would not force any groups to hold ceremonies in their places of worship. 

Ministers will reveal their response to a consultation next week. MPs will be given a free vote on the issue.

The "Church of England" responded:

It is important to be clear that insistence on the traditional understanding of marriage is not knee-jerk resistance to change but is based on a conviction that the consequences of change will not be beneficial for society as a whole. Our concern is for the way the meaning of marriage will change for everyone, gay or straight, if the proposals are enacted. Because we believe that the inherited understanding of marriage contributes a vast amount to the common good, our defence of that understanding is motivated by a concern for the good of all in society.

The proposition that same-sex relationships can embody crucial social virtues is not in dispute. To that extent, the Prime Minister's claim that he supports same-sex marriage from conservative principles is readily understandable.  However, the uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation.

To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged. To argue that this is of no social value is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals. To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.
  
We believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage.

Given the absence of any manifesto commitment for these proposals - and the absence of any commitment in the most recent Queen's speech - there will need to be an overwhelming mandate from the consultation to move forward with these proposals and make them a legislative priority.

We welcome the fact that in his statement the Prime Minister has signalled he is abandoning the Government's earlier intention to distinguish between civil and religious marriage.  We look forward to studying the Government's detailed response to the consultation next week and to examining the safeguards it is proposing to give to Churches.

Except for the weak acknowledgement in the second paragraph that "same-sex relationships can embody crucial social virtues" and the references to the English Government and the Queen, the statement could have come from the Vatican.

Who wrote this anonymous press release in the name of the "Church of England"?  What minds came together to produce this rubbish?  Or was it just one person?   Judging from the people I know in the Church of England, the response most certainly does not express the mind of the entire church.  Was General Synod consulted?  Is it possible for the people in the head office of the Church of England to be more out of touch?   Many questions; no answers as of yet.

H/T to Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans.

UPDATE: While we're on the subject, please read Mark Harris' brilliant response to the "Church of England's" response to David Cameron's statement on same-sex marriage. Thank you.

IRONY IS NOT DEAD

SHE’S dark-haired and vivacious with a penchant for leather trousers, biker jackets and Louboutin heels. She listens to Radio head, reads Jane Austen and watches The West Wing. And no, we’re not talking about a starlet taking over Hollywood but a woman who is an ordained priest. Step forward the Reverend Sally Hitchiner.

Sally looks spiffy to me, quite stylish and attractive, but not everyone agrees.

The world now appears to be divided between those who are hailing 32-year-old Rev Hitchiner for being a welcome burst of fresh air and for refusing to conform to the frumpy stereotype of a priest and those who are aghast at her sartorial choices and believe she is dragging the Church of England into disrepute.
....

“This is the sort of spectacle traditional Anglicans feared when they allowed the ordination of women. We wouldn’t expect a policewoman to accessorise her uniform like this – nor do her hair up like she’s off to a ball. She seems too vain to hold office, which requires quiet dignity.”

"Dragging the Church of England into disrepute?"  Tut, tut, tut.  Can it be true?  Compare Sally's flashy fashions with the "quiet dignity" of the vestments of gold, jewels, and silk of Pope Benedict and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.  The contrast is striking.  Heh, heh.

The clothes Sally wears in the fashion shoot are borrowed, as she cannot afford Prada and other designer brands on a chaplain's wage.

Brave Bishop Alan Wilson jumps into the fray or goes out on a limb - choose your metaphor:

“I think Sally is both smart and sassy and that obviously causes some people problems but that’s their issue not hers.
....

“It’s insane and it’s something that doesn’t happen to men. I think there is institutionalised sexism in the Church of England and the only way to root it out is to name it for what it is. I admire the fact that Sally has the personal confidence to go out there and be the person she is rather than being cowed by a lot of silly old men who doubtless feel she should be something else.”

Is it just me, or does anyone else note that Alan spends a good deal of time out there on a limb?   Thank God for an Anglican bishop who breathes fresh air into the stuffy atmosphere.

Sally says:

“I’ve always been struck by the stories of Jesus going to people where they are. No group was off limits He just was himself and met people where they are,” she says.

“That’s how I’m trying to live my life.”  

As for the young chaplain, along with her fashion statements and how she lives her life, she is another breath of fresh air in the church.  My words to her are, "Geaux Sally!"    

H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead.

THOUGHTS ON THE PROCESS...

Wake me when the first woman is ordained bishop in the Church of England.

Since the defeat of the motion in General Synod to allow women bishops, I have grieved along with my friends in the Church of England, especially my women friends, both clergy and laity. The vote was a slap in the face to all women, within the church and without. Although I've read pages and pages of discussion and opinions on the fix to allow women bishops, and I've even gone so far as to watch videos of English Parliament arguing the question, I have no idea how the Church of England will resolve the matter. Now I shall take a break from it all it and wait to hear the good news (soon, I hope) of a resolution and wait even longer for the announcement of the choice of the first woman bishop and for the date for her ordination to be named.

Whenever the remedy to this great injustice comes, I pray the resolution will honor the women who have faithfully served the church for so very many years.  Joy on the occasion of the acknowledgement of women as equals in the sight of God and of humanity will be tempered by the exceedingly slow and grudging process of giving assent.  In the case of women bishops, the moral arc of the universe in bending toward justice is, indeed, long.

 

Photo from NASA.

ARE THERE THREE...

One wonders if there are any three English bishops out there with the guts to get together and do what the Bishop and the Bishop Coadjutor of Aberdeen and the Bishop of Ross and Caithness did for the Episcopal Church in consecrating Samuel Seabury (our first bishop) on November 14, 1784: consecrate a woman as a bishop in England.

Probably not.

It’s hard for a leopard to change its spots. (Nigel Taber-Hamilton)

As the English already know, we are a rebellious lot here in the US, but the Church of England is no less so, having broken the yoke to the Church of Rome some hundreds of years ago.

Several of us discussed this approach to having women bishops in England on Facebook, and the conclusion for most was that it couldn't be done for various reasons. I say, "Why not?" Kudos, Nigel for your what-if.  Other suggestions may be found in the comments at Daily Episcopalian.   

The Rev. Nigel Taber-Hamilton is rector of St. Augustine’s in-the-Woods Episcopal Church on Whidbey Island, WA.   Nigel came to the US from England in 1979.

The painting by Peter J Morgan depicts the consecration of Bishop Samuel Seabury by three bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

UPDATE: You may want to read Lay Anglicana's post titled "Who’s Queen? – & Is She Not Also A Bishop?: John Adams".

BOSCO 'SPLAINS IT ALL

Presiding Bishop Katharine
carries her mitre

Sometimes those outside see inside more clearly than the insiders.   From Christchurch, NZ, Bosco Peters' writes an excellent post on the defeat of the motion to allow women bishops in the Church of England. 

Obviously my bishop, being a woman, cannot function as a bishop in England. Since this week’s vote in the Church of England’s General Synod, one can no longer make polite English excuses about this being an accident of history. It is now an intentional decision.

I have a … (how can I say this on a family-friendly site?)… ummm…I have a Y chromosome and I was ordained by someone with a Y chromosome, etc. all the way back to the earliest church. I can function as a priest in all of the Church of England. Some, however, who were ordained by someone who has no Y chromosome, even though they themselves have a Y chromosome, will find some places in the CofE where they cannot so function. We are a commnon.

No, the last word in the paragraph is not a misspelling, although Firefox or some other power in charge of internet spelling says otherwise.  Bosco has coined a new word for us which is not yet accepted in the lexicon of the intertubes.  Click one of the links to read how Bosco 'splains it all.

I joke around some here (you laugh, or you cry) , but Bosco shares seriously good thoughts about what is and what is not communion and various other matters. 

MESSAGE TO MY ENGLISH FRIENDS

 

My sympathy to all my friends in the Church of England, especially to women friends and women priest friends. Whenever the next opportunity to vote on women bishops comes around, the measure must be a single clause - the Church of England will ordain women as bishops. Take it or leave it - no ifs, ands, or buts.

My dear English friends, perhaps now you can put behind you feelings of sympathy for those with  tender consciences that can be appeased only by assigning others to a lower place. You may not wish to put so crass a name on such a practice, but I call it what it is - misogyny.

Blessings and peace.

UPDATE: The Second Church Estates Commissioner Sir Tony Baldry:

There have been some suggestions in the press that it is impossible for the Church of England or General Synod to return to this issue until after a new General Synod has been elected in 2015. That is not correct: the rules prevent the same Measure from being reconsidered by the General Synod without a special procedure. It is perfectly possible for a different and amended Measure to consecrate women bishops to be considered by the General Synod. Although this is for the Church of England to resolve, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, I suspect that there will also be those in the Church of England who will wish to consider whether the election process to the General Synod is sufficiently representative, particularly of the laity of the Church of England, as Tuesday’s vote clearly did not reflect the overall and clear consensus of dioceses across England in support of women bishops.

It is my earnest hope that during the time I serve the Queen—whose appointment I am—this House and the Church of England as Second Church Estates Commissioner it will prove possible for me to bring before this House a Measure that will enable women to be consecrated bishops in the Church of England.

Thanks to Erp for the link.  I've heard various opinions about when a measure may be brought up again at General Synod, but Baldry's words seem to settle the matter.

CONFIRMED: JUSTIN WELBY FOR ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

 

Sources have confirmed that the Eton-educated bishop will be announced as successor to Dr Rowan Williams as early as Friday, after the Crown Nominations Commission put his name forward to Downing Street. 

It marks a meteoric rise for the former oil executive who has been a bishop for only a year, but insiders described Welby as "the outstanding candidate".

The bookies and Ruth Gledhill were right.

Bishop Welby supports women bishops, but so far as I can discern, he probably does not favor either same-sex marriage or gay bishops.

UPDATE FROM THE BBC:

In a pastoral letter to his diocese on the issue he wrote how he was "committed to and believes in the ordination of women as bishops".

He has been less forthright about his views on homosexuality. While he has rigorously defended the Church's right to oppose single-sex marriages, he has also been keen to accommodate opposing views expressed from a position of deeply held faith.

BISHOP ALAN SPEAKS OUT FOR GAY MARRIAGE

Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, one of my heroes, says in the video:

“It all comes down to how we see gay people and how we see God. We don’t actually believe gay people are sick or stunted or criminal. We don’t believe God is an angry old man out to get us.

“Let’s stop behaving as though we did. Recognising gay people are equal means they won’t dilute or spoil marriage but potentially enrich it.”

Condemnation of the statement comes quickly.

Duncan Boyd, chairman of Keep Marriage Special, said: “The bishop’s statement is a disgraceful and disingenuous distortion of biblical teaching by someone who ought to know better.

“Scripture, the Church of England’s doctrinal foundation, makes clear that homosexual desire and practice are sinful.” He called it “a gross distortion of biblical teaching” to suggest such behaviour could be practised freely, adding: “The Government should not change the law and the bishop should teach what the Bible says or resign.”

"Keep Marriage Special" sounds like a club for teenage girls organized by a clueless adult.  I pray Alan does not entertain the thought of resigning for one second.  What nonsense.  Thank God for a bishop in the Church of England with the courage to speak out.

Then comes the voice of negativity from the church:   

 A Church of England spokesman contradicted Dr Wilson. “Our Church is committed to marriage as being between a man and woman,” he said.

The people of the country are far ahead of the church, which needs to catch up or the institution will be left further behind than it is already.

UPDATE: Bishop Nick Holtham of Salisbury has also spoken out in favor of gay marriage.

BISHOP JUSTIN WELBY - CENTRAL CASTING ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY?

Although he's fourth in line behind Christopher Cocksworth, Graham James, and John Sentamu, Giles Fraser likes Bishop of Durham Justin Welby for Archbishop of Canterbury.

Paddy Power has him as 6:1 to be the next archbishop of Canterbury. But Justin Welby, the Bishop of Durham, is having none of it. He really doesn't want the job. "Lets be clear, I'm one of the thicker bishops in the Church of England," he tells me. I'm not taken in by this disarming self-deprecation – something for which Old Etonians like him are not especially noted. No, there is nothing remotely thick about Bishop Welby. 

Ah well, I don't know whether Bishop Welby is thick or not, so I'll take Giles' word for it that he's not.  For the sake of my English friends, I hope and pray for a wise choice by the Crown Nominations Commission.  For the sake of the Anglican Communion, too, although I hope the leaders of the Episcopal Church will never again be as obsequious to another Archbishop of Canterbury as they have been at times to Archbishop Rowan.  I also nurse a small hope that the next ABC might like the members of the Episcopal Church just a little and have the occasional kind word for us, unlike Rowan Williams who seemed so often to scorn, scold, and lecture.

"I have tried to avoid saying anything," he admits at the end of the interview. Well, I'm not sure he succeeded. On many levels he seems like a central-casting Church of England bishop. On the subject of women bishops he speaks of the need to square the circle, reconciling those who think it a theological necessity and those who think it a theological impossibility. How do you do this? "Well, you just look at the circle and say it's a circle with sharp bits on it."

On the question of women bishops, Bishop Welby surely succeeded in not saying anything to me, for I have no idea what he means by his "circle with sharp bits on it".  Still, he'd have Giles Fraser's vote, if he had a vote, which should count for something.

OUR MAN DIARMAID ON WOMEN BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Well, Diarmaid MacCullough is our man in a way, as he's a member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.  In his latest article in the Guardian, MacCullough notes that despite claims to the contrary, in the early church the label "apostles" is not limited to the 12 named in the Gospels.  Paul, writer of the epistles to early churches, emphatically claimed the title of apostle, and, in his letters, he speaks of women in leadership roles and named Junia as an apostle in the letter to the Romans. 

The great distorting factor in Christian history which transcends denominational and many other ecclesiastical divisions is that most history has been written by men. And the truth is that men are for the most part not very interested in women, except in certain very specific ways – most of which have been officially out of bounds, because of the general tendency of past Christian historians to be not just men, but celibate clergymen.

(Pause)  All right, I had to stop for a chuckle.

There is another wild card to take into account in history: the way that something which once seemed so important to everyone can suddenly seem of no significance at all – and then all the worries are rapidly forgotten, as if they had never been. Let me point you to one of the most long-lasting examples: the Christian ban on menstruating women from participation in the sacraments or even from approaching the altar..

Oh ick!...and another chuckle.  Men!

MacCullough doesn't mention Mary Magdalene.  Earlier in the article the writer reminds us that apostle means messenger, and the Magdalene was the messenger at the tomb whom either Jesus (John's Gospel), or the young man in the white robe (Mark's Gospel), or the angel (Matthew's Gospel), or two men in dazzling apparel (Luke's Gospel) sent to the disciples with the good news that Jesus was alive.

Do read the entire article, as it is excellent.   In the end, MacCullough advises the male bishops to just get on with the business of ordaining women bishops.

LOWER ORDER WOMEN BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

Let's hope and pray that will not be the case.  The following poem was written by David Booker, a former colleague of themethatisme.  David kindly gave me permission to post his poem.

The case for clause 5. 1c

You are not like me.
The difference is obvious,
as plain as the nose on your face.
I am sorry to say
that although I have nothing against you
personally,
and although some of my best friends are like you,
I cannot, in all conscience,
accept the gift you offer.

Please don’t feel this secondary issue
in any way makes you second class.
Rather marvel at my exegetical acrobatics,
turning up to down, and north to south,
and Galatians 3 verse 28*
into a culturally bound reflection
we cannot be expected to take literally.

You must allow bigotry to triumph over grace
because unity demands the majority be silent.
As good Christians you must respect me
even when I refuse to recognise you
or eat from a table you may once have used
for fear of contamination
and deliberately airbrush you out of scripture
by mistranslating your name to suit my prejudice.

Yes, although our Church recognises
there is no theological objection,
you must turn a blind eye to injustice,
chauvinism, sexism, poor scholarship
and an incredulous watching world,
to guarantee a perpetual place for my ignorance.

After all, the permanent no go areas
we are asking you to create
will not stop those of others races,
or those with a yet incurable disease,
from exercising their ministry.
No, we only want to protect ourselves from women
and we really don’t understand the fuss.

David Booker

*Galatians 3v28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus
I can not support the amendment 5. 1c and dearly hope that it will be removed.

The statement on clause 5(1)c from the website of the Church of England.

WATCH (Women and the Church) on the clause:

But the amendment to Clause 5 has caused widespread dismay. It would entrench discrimination against women in the Established Church and place a permanent question mark over the validity of women's orders.  The confusion over its interpretation amongst commentators demonstrates that it would prove to be bad law

Sign the petition requesting the House of Bishops in the Church of England to withdraw clause 5(1)c.  You don't have to be English to sign.

MORE "NOT IN OUR NAME" FROM MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

The following is a letter to the Times of London, (behind their paywall) from bishops, lay members of General Synod, and other prelates in the Church of England dissenting from the statement purporting to speak for "the Church" on the proposal to allow same-sex civil marriage in England. 

To: The Editor
The Times

Sir,

A number of recent statements by church leaders past and present may have given the mistaken impression that the Church is universally opposed to the extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples. We believe that does not adequately reflect the range of opinion which exists within the Church of England.

Marriage is a robust institution which has adapted much over the centuries. It has moved beyond the polygamy of the Old Testament and preoccupation with social status and property in pre-Enlightenment times.

While the Prayer Book states that marriage was ordained first for ‘the procreation of children’ the modern marriage service begins by emphasising the quality of relationship between marriage partners ‘that they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind.’

The Church calls marriage holy or sacramental because the covenant relationship of committed, faithful love between the couple reflects the covenanted love and commitment between God and his Church. Growing in this kind of love means we are growing in the image of God. So the fact that there are same-sex couples who want to embrace marriage should be a cause for rejoicing in the Christian Church.

We welcome current moves by the House of Bishops to consider again its view of civil partnerships and human sexuality. We hope this will lead to a recognition of God’s grace at work in same-sex partnerships and call on the Church to engage in theological discussion and prayerful reflection on the nature of marriage.

We also welcome recent reported statements by the Bishop of Salisbury and the new Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral calling on the Church to affirm same-sex couples who want to take on the commitment of marriage.

It is our belief that the Church of England has nothing to fear from the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples. It will be for the churches to then decide how they should respond pastorally to such a change in the law.

Sincerely

Canon Giles Goddard, General Synod, Southwark
The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans
The Rt Rev Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham
The Rt Rev Michael Doe
The Rt Rev John Gladwin
The Rt Rev Lord Harries of Pentregarth
The Rt Rev Peter Selby
The Rt Rev David Stancliffe
The Very Rev David Brindley, Dean of Portsmouth
The Very Rev Graham Smith, Dean of Norwich
The Very Rev Victor Stock, Dean of Guildford
Mrs April Alexander, General Synod, Southwark
The Rev Stephen Coles, General Synod, London
The Rev Clair Herbert, General Synod, London
Mr John Ward LLB, General Synod, London

Just one more reminder, amongst many, to us all and to the anonymous persons who put together the statement on same-sex civil marriage that, whoever they are, theirs are not the only opinions within  the Church of England.

H/T to Peter Owen at Thinking Anglicans.

A GREAT CHASM...

SCG put together this Bishop Yellow Belly video a year and a half ago.  The content seems as relevant today as when it was made, including the portion on the Anglican Covenant, as I suspect that there are those in the Church of England who wish to revive the corpse.

UPDATE: No sooner had I hit "Publish" when a new post from Paul Bagshaw in England appeared in my reader on (of all things!) the subject of the Anglican Covenant.

"No timeframe" and "following ACC-15" keep options open. Drexel Gomez' drumbeat of 'urgent, urgent' has clearly been ignored. Instead an open-ended process would allow the Anglican Consultative Council to kill the Covenant if enough members wished to do so. Alternatively it would allow one province after another to sign up till those who had initially declined to do so became overwhelmed by its popularity and conceded.

Hmm...and further from GS1878: report by the Business Committee on the reference [of the Covenant] to the dioceses :

6) ... For the record, there is nothing in the Synod’s Constitution or Standing Orders that would preclude the process being started over again, whether in the lifetime of this Synod or subsequently, by another draft Instrument to the same effect being brought forward for consideration by the General Synod before being referred to the dioceses under Article 8. The Business Committee is not, however, aware of a proposal to re-start the process in this way.

Please read Paul's entire commentary on the shenanigans "amongst those who might regard themselves as 'players' in this particular game."  Sounds to me as if the "players" want to keep all options open, including an attempt to revive the corpse of the covenant in England.  

WHAT IS THIS CHURCH OF ENGLAND...?

Canterbury Cathedral

In The Times in London, which you cannot read without a subscription, Diarmaid MacCullough writes about the latest statement from the Church of England on the proposal to allow same-sex civil marriage in England.  Of course, I cannot copy the entire article for a number of reasons, but I'll take the risk of giving you a few snippets:

So “the Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony”. That’s odd, I thought that I was part of the Church of England and I can and do support the proposal. And I know quite a few other people who thought that they were part of the Church of England and they support it too.

So what is this Church of England that doesn’t? It doesn’t actually sign its name to the 13-page public submission it has just made to the Government’s consultation on marriage equality, but it is not difficult to ferret out what it is.

It is a curious theme park called Bishop World. This is a collection of middle-aged to elderly males, some gay (though they don’t like to say so in public), some heterosexual (and they remind us of that all the time in public). They have a penchant for wearing mitres, sitting on committees and talking to each other. They are ably assisted by a small group of lawyers and civil servants, again for the most part remarkably male. A high fence protects the environs of Bishop World, so none of the inmates are troubled by opinions from the distressing wilderness beyond its bounds. Within their defences, nevertheless, they are anxious, insecure creatures, who worry incessantly about the breakdown of society.

I hesitate to post the link where I found the entire article, but if you Google the first words of the piece and the author's given name, you should find it.  I would not want to vacation at Bishop World Theme Park.

Geaux, Diarmaid - er - Sir Diarmaid!